Friday, October 30, 2009

"Ecstasy, LSD and cannabis are less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes, the Government’s chief drug adviser claims today.

Professor David Nutt is calling for a new 'index of harm' to warn the public about the relative dangers of various substances.

He says alcohol should rank fifth, behind only cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy.

His comments are likely to prove explosive, given the seniority of his position. Professor Nutt has also courted controversy in the past - by suggesting taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than riding a horse."

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Based on the latest polls, Americans want a public health care option, they don't want to send more troops to Afghanistan, and they don't like the GOP.

This is not surprising since the GOP, on the whole, advocates a second surge in Afghanistan and is resistant to any type of public option. Let's take a closer look at the numbers.

In a CNN Poll, 52% of Americans believe Afghanistan is turning into "another Vietnam", while 46% disagree. 59% oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan, while 39% support sending more. Of the 59% opposed to more troops, 49% support a partial or full-scale withdrawal.

Greater than 67% believe that Afghanistan will not have a stable government in the next few years, although a similar percentage feels an American presence is necessary to assist the Afghan government and to prevent the reemergence of Al-Qaeda.

In a Quinnipiac Poll, 61% of voters want a public option, although voters, by a margin of 47% to 40%, disapprove of President Obama's health care reform plan. By a margin of 57% to 37%, voters do not want Congress to approve health care reform without a single Republican vote. In addition, 71% of voters believe health care reform will add to the deficit, while 19% disagree.

Regarding the GOP, only 25% of voters have a favorable opinion of the party, and only 29% believe the GOP is acting in good faith on the Hill.

So, what can we ascertain from these numbers?

On Afghanistan, a majority opposes more troops, and a near majority supports either a partial or full-scale withdrawal. However, a strong majority accepts the premise that an American presence of some kind is necessary to stabilize the nation and prevent Al-Qaeda from utilizing it as a staging ground to attack our nation.

Though these numbers may be a bit contradictory, they would seem to support a third, viable option for Afghanistan: Withdraw most of our troops, but utilize special ops, drone attacks, air strikes, cruise missiles, and a vigilant, nearby naval presence to contain Al-Qaeda.

On health care, a strong majority supports a public option, but a near majority rejects Obama's reform plan, which is still keeping the government plan alive. Perhaps the near majority is more of a reflection of Democrats that demand a public option in any plan.

And although most support more government-based health care reform, a vast majority believes such a plan will add to the deficit, even though this contradicts Obama's and the CBO's projections. As a result, there seems to be a consensus that Americans desire strong health care reform, including a public option, even though they believe it will add more debt.

On the Republican Party, the vast majority disapprove at this time. This could be due to the fact that Republicans have posed vociferous opposition to the public option, formidable opposition to Obama's huge budget deficits, and strong support for more troops and a longer stay in Afghanistan.

Or, it could be due to the perception of hypocrisy, since the previous Administration ran huge deficits, added trillions of dollars of debt, and bailed out Wall Street with trillions in taxpayer dollars. Or, more simply, it could be due to the rancorous partisanship wars between major media outlets.

What do you think about these polls? What do they say about voters? What do they mean for America? What does it mean for the Republican Party? Let's hear your thoughts.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger typically attaches a message to bills he signs or vetoes telling lawmakers why he took the action.

A Democratic assemblyman who heckled the governor during a recent event in San Francisco actually received two messages: the veto letter itself and a not-so-subtle rebuke creatively hidden within it.

Like a find-the-word puzzle, the second message was visible by stringing together the first letter of each line down the left-hand margin. It consisted of a common four-letter vulgarity followed by the letters "y-o-u."

I stumbled upon this today while rereading Book Four of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics:

Vain people, on the other hand, are fools and ignorant of themselves, and conspicuously so; for thinking themselves capable of honorable undertakings, they make the attempt, and they are exposed. And they adorn themselves in dress and pose for effect and do other such things... thinking that through these they will be honored.

6. You can thank capitalism for the energy that powered the abovementioned equipment to produce this video, and your computer so that you can watch it.

7. Before capitalism, people toiled remarkably long hours just to subsist. Art and leisure remained largely the purview of wealthy aristocrats. Post-capitalism, these young people had the leisure to produce this video, and you have the time to watch it because capital makes your labor more productive, allowing you to work fewer hours, while making more income, to buy more affordable products than in the entire history of the world!

8. Capitalism is about individualism. Individuals get to make their own decisions according to their personal tastes and preferences. Capitalism is about freedom, not only the freedom to produce and trade, but the freedom to be different, the freedom to be weird! Thank goodness for that freedom, because this video made me smile today.

9. Capitalism is about collective groups of people cooperating harmoniously. Don't believe me? Think about all the total strangers who cooperated to bring you this video. The people who made it, the people who made the equipment with which they made it, the employees at Google, which owns YouTube, the workers at your power plant who power your computer, and so on!

10. Compare infant mortality rates of former capitalist countries with non-capitalist countries, or those of the pre-capitalist and post-capitalist world, and a stark contrast emerges. It is remarkable, but true to say that without capitalism, a tenth or more (at least) of the people in the video would not have been there and a tenth of you would not be alive to read these words.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Last week, Ryan Jaroncyk and I had the exciting privilege of interviewing Cato scholar and Foreign Policy Analyst, Malou Innocent.

We ended up covering America's overall foreign policy and what principles should direct it, the war in Afghanistan, the war against Al-Qaeda, Obama's undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, the widely-ignored PTSD epidemic in our military, nuclear policy, and ideas for revising U.S. foreign policy to keep America safe.

Below is a text transcript of the first half of this hour long interview. You are free to browse and read it at your leisure, but I highly recommend that you listen to the entire interview here.

WesMessamore: Malou? You're on the air!

Malou Innocent: Thank you for having me.

WesMessamore: Ryan, you there?

RyanJaroncyk: Yes I am! Hello, Wes. Hello, Malou.

Malou Innocent: Hey Ryan.

WesMessamore: It was good corresponding with you to get this all set up. I want to start off with your fundamental underlying principles that inform your view of American foreign and military policy, and use that as a common thread throughout this discussion. So what should be the goal of U.S. foreign policy?

Malou Innocent: Well I think the goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to keep America safe, and I think as libertarians, we should want to limit military action to situations that threaten U.S. sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We believe that attempts to remake the world in our own image are abuses of American power, and such foreign interventions motivate terrorists to attack the United States, foreign powers to make alliances against the United States, they usually fail to achieve their intended results, and they put financial burdens on the American taxpayer.

So across the board, we would be for military restraint.

WesMessamore: So the goal is to keep America safe, to protect its sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and the goal is not to remake the world in our own image or get involved in other people's affairs.

Malou Innocent: Absolutely. And this sort of dovetails with Afghanistan and the conflation we see with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. It is a transnational Jihadist network in countries across the world- Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, the Philippines- and yet we've lumped them in with the Taliban, which is a guerrilla Jihadi group which is indigenous to the Pashtun people of Afghanistan.

And it appears that we've broadened the number of enemies and we're telling the U.S. public that we need to protect the villages of Afghanistan from the Taliban. That's a much different objective than what we had before.

WesMessamore: It seems that the objective always keeps changing and is always a bit ambiguous, over there and in all our foreign adventures.

Malou Innocent: Right and I think what ends up happening with this "mission creep" that we've seen in Afghanistan is that in lumping different groups and them all becoming our enemies, and what I fear is that the longer we stay in Afghanistan and the more money we spend, the more we'll feel compelled to remain there to validate our investment.

That's sort of a self-imposed predicament- and it's plagued us all the time in war. I think no matter what we do- whether we stay or withdraw, Al-Qaeda will always twist it into a victory. If we stay in the region, our military will always appear bogged down, our mission will always seem aimless, and we will continue to incur civilian casualties, which will erode support for our occupation.

So either way, Al-Qaeda will twist it into a victory- so we should just do what's best for U.S. interests, so instead of pouring resources into a money pit, we should look at fiscal discipline, what's best for the United States, and what's best for our soldiers.

WesMessamore: So you're rebutting the idea that we'd appear weak if we withdraw from Afghanistan. What about the objection that we'd actually be weakened by withdrawal- that we'd see a resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda if we draw down forces in the region and not continue nation-building?

Malou Innocent: I don't think we'll see that occur- maybe some elements would be emboldened by a withdrawal, but the Al-Qaeda network doesn't have much esteem in much of the Muslim world. In fact, we've seriously degraded Al-Qaeda's global capabilities- and that's been a success, and we haven't pushed that hard enough on the PR side.

Instead we've gotten bogged down in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Insurgencies themselves are very difficult to combat. It's a faceless enemy that can easily melt back into the population. With Al-Qaeda though, it's been different- it's been a success. And we're not weak by any stretch of the imagination.

WesMessamore: Did I understand you correctly, when you said in the Muslim world that there is a negative perception of Al-Qaeda?

Malou Innocent: Yes.

WesMessamore: I did not know that- what you always hear is that "Maybe there is just a radical militant fringe in Islam, but no mainstream non-militant Muslims condemn them."

Malou Innocent: Many Muslims perceive that the primary victims of Al-Qaeda have been Muslims, which has led to the marginalization of the group itself. Many of the victims of this network have disproportionately been Muslims.

WesMessamore: That's just something you never hear. The perception is that there is this Muslim conspiracy or imperialism- you get this whole narrative that Islam is seeking to conquer the whole world, and if it's not an extreme terrorist, that even if it's just a normal Muslim family living in- pick a country: Iran, Egypt, Indonesia- that their sympathies lie with these terrorist groups. But instead- they think these terrorists are as much a threat to their way of life as we do in America?

...Ryan- feel free to jump in with any questions you have...

RyanJaroncyk: Yes- Malou, I have a question about Al-Qaeda. Where is Al-Qaeda in the world? Where are the "hot spots?"

Malou Innocent: Yes- in Somalia, we believe there are Al-Qaeda operatives working. We've attacked some there with drones. We believe there is some Al-Qaeda activity in the Philippines. But the leadership of Al-Qaeda is believed to be in Pakistan, in the lawless, tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The number one in line and number two are believed to be in the Pakistani border lands.

The best way we have been able to snatch Al-Qaeda operatives is for the CIA to cooperate with foreign law enforcement- not necessarily blunt military force. The notion that to counter Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan- I disagree that we need sixty thousand or eighty thousand troops. Then do we need as many troops in the Philippines? In Pakistan? In Somalia?

RyanJaroncyk: Going back to a big picture question- with a restrained military policy, where would we place our troops and what would our budget look like?

Malou Innocent: My colleague at Cato, Justin Logan, is a real expert on a lot of these "nuts and bolts" aspects of our foreign policy. Here's what I think he would say:

Logistically- before we begin to scale down our troops, we need to scale down our missions. We still have commitments to protect Northern and Eastern Europe, the Korean peninsula, Taiwan- we need to scale back these commitments first. If we narrow troops first, while remaining committed to these countries, we'll put a greater burden on a smaller number of remaining troops.

So first, we need to revise our commitments to other countries and determine whether military threats to these other countries pose an existential threat to the United States. And we need to determine whether these commitments to other countries affect our deterrent policies.

RyanJaroncyk: Let's take missile defense as an example: do you think Europe, Korea, and Japan possess the capability to provide their own missile defense?

Malou Innocent: Well with Japan and South Korea for instance, many of these countries can defend themselves. They do have civilian nuclear power and could weaponize it, according to some estimates, in as little as a year. Protecting them is just a holdover from the Cold War.

The notion of NATO in itself, is just a bulwark against Soviet Expansion into Europe, again a holdover from the Cold War. France and Britain are two nuclear armed powers that don't need to be protected by us.

WesMessamore: Okay- so let's connect the dots between our "over-stretchedness" around the world and the underlying principle of keeping America safe. Do our present policies make America more or less safe?

Malou Innocent: They do waste a lot of money, and they do make America less safe. They also give Americans the false sense of assurance that we remain safe. 9-11 happened at the height of our military presence around the world. So it's not clear that deploying our military around the world is a necessary or sufficient condition to making America more safe.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office did a test run just a few months ago, taking bomb making materials into ten Federal buildings. They ordered them for $150 off the Internet, they could assemble them in just ten minutes, they got into every single building- the Justice Dept, the State Dept- and it just goes to show that a fairly secure building in the United States could come under attack, even with our military presence abroad.

WesMessamore: What are the most imminent threats to our national security then? What makes America less safe?

Malou Innocent: Sadly- I think it's our very own foreign policies. Not only do they induce debt creation, but they fulfill the Al-Qaeda narrative. For example, the recent elections in Afghanistan showed how pervasively corrupt the Afghanistan regime is.

One of the motivating factors for these terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 is our support abroad for corrupt and illegitimate regimes. And that's what we're doing now. Cato's position is that intervention abroad is strongly correlated with more terrorist attacks.

Across the board, our own policies induce the threats that we are trying to defend ourselves against.

WesMessamore: So foreign invasion, open war, none of those are real threats to our security- you'd say the biggest threat is international terrorism? And that the ultimate cause of that is our own foreign policy?

Malou Innocent: No- I'd say the primary threat is our belief that we should be intervening so much. Not necessarily the terrorists themselves.

WesMessamore: I'd agree. I'd say that if we scientifically look into the causes of terrorism- that it is U.S. foreign policy. Cato itself did a report in 1998 based off of DOD data that showed that increased U.S. military intervention overseas is directly correlated with higher incidences of terrorism.

So I'd say that scientifically, it's just true that our policies are breeding terrorism overseas. But that view is not very palatable to many Americans, especially those who identify themselves as "conservative" or "strong-on-defense" because they feel like you're blaming America. How can we make that idea more palatable?

Malou Innocent: You raise an interesting point. There is the perception that if you critique U.S. policy or U.S. foreign policy, that you hate the United States. But take me for example- I'm for military restraint, and for me at least- I love the U.S. military and its men and women in uniform. That's part of why I want to bring them home.

And you are right that the empirical data shows U.S. action abroad incites more terrorist attacks against the United States. In fact, the 2004 task force that was hand picked by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon to assess the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism efforts, found that the underlying threat to American interests is its intervention overseas and its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

That was Rumsfeld's Pentagon. So we're not talking about Cindy Sheehan or dirt-worshiping tree huggers. Those were the findings of a Republican administration and Pentagon. So I think bringing those facts to light will help show that critiquing U.S. foreign policy is what's best for U.S. foreign policy.

WesMessamore: I also think that government grows when we grow the welfare state, but it also grows when we grow the warfare state- and that the more we can make that connection- to the point of saying- because it's true but also because it has powerful rhetorical effect- that warfare is often welfare for other countries. Nation building is welfare for other countries. And if we as conservatives and libertarians oppose welfare here at home, shouldn't we oppose it even more for non-U.S. citizens with our tax money?

Malou Innocent: Exactly. Thank you! I'm so glad to hear you say that, and I wish more people would. I think it's bizarre when libertarians and conservatives believe in as little government as humanly possible, but don't see the full force of their support for intervention abroad.

Also, our notions of freedom and justice may differ throughout the world, so imposing them on other cultures may not be effective or right because they limit voluntary human action abroad. For example, you can't see me because we're on the phone, but I'm wearing a sleeveless top right now, and in some areas of the world, that is considered dishonorable.

So we cannot assume that imposing our form of governance will be readily accepted by people around the world.

WesMessamore: And even if we believe that our notions of liberty transcend cultural differences, even if we want to say- and I would tend to say- that if a culture is okay with certain forms of oppression or limitations on human free agency, that that culture is wrong (about that anyway).

It doesn't follow that the imposition of freedom on that culture will be effective or even make any kind of sense. I'm reminded of an episode of that Matt Groening show Futurama, where a character says "We will show the world of our peaceful ways- through force!" That's exactly how it sounds to me.

---

For Malou Innocent's response and for the second half of this interview (which includes a lot of answers to some great, very specific policy questions from Ryan Jaroncyk as well as Malou's thoughts on Obama's recent Nobel Peace Prize)- please listen to the entire thing here.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Saturday, October 24, 2009

In his recent interview with a pool of reporters, Vice President Joe Biden responded to Cheney's blistering criticism that the Obama Administration is "'dithering' on ordering more troops to Afghanistan, as he plows through an exhaustive review of US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"I think that is absolutely wrong," Biden added, checking himself before completely finishing the statement, noting his gaffe-prone speaking history: "Who cares what-- Yeah, yeah, I can see the headline now. I'm getting better, guys. I'm getting a little better, you know what I mean?"

Now I agree with Vice President Biden on Mr. Cheney's relevance: Who cares? I will in fact say what the current Vice President cannot say because it would make way too awesome of a headline coming from him: Dick Cheney needs to shut his mouth.

Former Presidents and Vice Presidents need to back off of engaging in partisan politics and direct critiques of sitting Presidents. It is an unwelcome development and precedent in the history of American politics as far as I'm concerned. I'm getting sick of Dick Cheney's embarrassing and improper displays of remarkable arrogance and no sense of boundaries.

I must also say that however distasteful it is coming from Mr. Cheney (especially given his abysmal record of foreign policy flops), that the critique itself is absolutely right, Joe Biden's denials notwithstanding. Obama is dithering on Afghanistan and our troops are suffering for it.

The Commander-in-Chief has time to involve himself in the Olympic Committee's selection process, hold a "beer summit," attend the First Lady's rigorous schedule of White House ceremonies and parties, and over-use a complicit media to sell an unpopular health reform plan, but doesn't have time to make a decision about Afghanistan while more troops are dying there than ever before?

Get with the program, Mr. President! It's not all fun, games, parties, adulation, and hero-worship. You ran for an office that has very serious responsibilities and it is more than infuriating to see you winning a Nobel Peace Prize while sitting on your hands and letting America's best, brightest, and bravest young men and women die.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Over at the Cato Institute, Justin Logan offered some unique insights into Defense Secretary Robert Gates' latest rationale for escalation in Afghanistan. Gates, representative of those who favor a second troop surge, nation building, and long-term deployment, made the case for further escalation by appealing to one of the most common emotional arguments. If we withdraw, Al-Qaeda declares victory and initiates a massive propaganda campaign.

Hawkish supporters of open-ended commitment often use a similar line of reasoning. We can't withdraw or alter strategy because America will appear as the "loser" just like in Vietnam, or we will have "fought in vain", or will have "cut and run" like cowards, etc, etc. Al-Qaeda will reap an enormous propaganda boost, draw a barrage of fresh recruits, and redevelop into a worldwide terrorist powerhouse.

In other words, to save face at any cost, America must commit itself to a protracted strategy without any consideration of current debt levels, a crippled Dollar, or the PTSD epidemic and record suicide rates in the military. Supporters counter that the price paid will prove a worthwhile investment to prevent the future cost of another 9/11 or worse. But, this is mere speculation that no one is ever able to quantify.

Logan draws from historical precedent in the Israel/Hamas conflict to dispel this line of reasoning as well. After almost 40 years of occupation, Israeli war hero and Prime Minister, the late Ariel Sharon, unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Many of Israel's hawks viewed the withdrawal as a blatant sign of weakness. Hamas filled the void, declared victory, ramped up the propaganda, and promised the end of Israel's regime.

Four years later, Israel is still the unequivocal powerhouse in the Middle East. It is still highly successful in deterring major terrorist attacks, protecting its citizens, and flexing its muscle when necessary. After four years, Israel still dictates the pace of Middle East geopolitics despite its withdrawal from Gaza.

Logan concludes by stating that no matter when we decide to withdraw from Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and the Islamic extremists will declare victory. Of course, this is speculation too, but it is certainly plausible. Therefore, we should focus on defining our interests, establishing specific goals, and achieving our precisely delineated objectives regardless of what PR tack Al-Qaeda may or may not pursue.

Let me be clear. As I've written in previous blogs, I do not personally endorse a full-scale withdrawal. I am in favor of a much more limited and focused mission like that advocated by conservative columnist, George Will, and conservative Ret. Lieutenant Colonel, Ralph Peters. Though they may be imperfect, I believe their proposals possess the highest probability of success for the cheapest price, lowest casualty counts, and minimal exacerbation of the psychological problems facing our men and women in the military.

That being said, I concur with Justin Logan's assessment. Fighting a long-term, extremely costly, and open-ended war in a third world country is not some public relations game. Our men and women are not pawns on a chess board. These are real men and women, with hearts, souls, and families. To continue pursuing a strategy that places them in the worst possible situation in order to "save face" does these brave men, women, and families a terrible disservice.

And for those who advocate a ramping up of operations, please consider America's current financial predicament as well. Just like original estimates in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet another surge in Afghanistan will cost a lot more money than expected for years to come. This added burden will place further strain on a $1.6 trillion budget deficit, $11.5 trillion debt, and a Dollar that has lost more than 33% of its value since 2002. Wars add more debt. Wars devalue a nation's currency. Can we really afford such an outcome at this point in time?

Some may protest, "But Obama and Congress should just cut spending in other areas of the budget to make up for the shortfall." But, as we all know, the current Administration and Congress are committed to more spending in an attempt to stimulate a battered economy. In addition, think back to the previous Republican administration and its Republican-led Congress. The party of "fiscal conservatism" didn't cut back on other areas of the budget while boosting spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, it kept on spending, adding trillions to the national debt and devaluing the Dollar.

In conclusion, fighting to prevent a propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda should not be a valid justification for adopting a potentially unwise strategy. It is one based on pure emotion , which is the perfect recipe for a war that will never end.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

In the New York Times today, economist Paul Krugman waxes triumphant for socialized medicine:

Steve Benen gets exercised over a new appearance of a zombie lie in the health care debate — the totally false claim that Canadian health care won’t pay for hip replacements for the elderly.

But the hip replacement scam is even worse than Steve realizes. Because who, you might ask, pays for hip replacements in America? The answer: Medicare pays 63.8% of the cost, Medicaid 6.8%. That’s right, the U.S. government pays for 70% of hip replacements in this country.

As pleased with this observation as Dr. Krugman is, it doesn't tell us anything at all about the superiority or inferiority of a government-run health insurance industry.

Tomorrow, government could decide to take over the shoe industry and buy 70% of Americans their shoes. That wouldn't mean that "socialized footwear" is more effective than a free market for shoes. All it means is that the government forcibly took over 70% of the market by law.

Likewise, the mere fact that the U.S. government pays for 70% of hip replacements isn't a reason why it should. That seems to me like a pretty amateur mistake for such a well-venerated intellectual (and Nobel Prize Laureate) as Paul Krugman.

The U.S. government doesn't have more market share because it provides a better product or does so at a lower cost, but simply because it's the U.S. government and all it has to do to garner market share is pass a law. The Cato Institute's Michael F. Cannon makes this clear:

A full accounting shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. The central problem with proposals to create a new government program, however, is not that government is less efficient than private insurers, but that government can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers away from private insurance, despite offering an inferior product.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost JobsThat's right! This press release by the Ranking House Ways and Means Committee Republican, Dave Camp shows that America is "Now Over 6 Million Jobs Shy of [the Obama] Administration's Projections" and says the following:

The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

So it's no wonder that Mr. Drudge also links us to new Rasmussen poll data, showing Obama's ratings are sinking again with an approval index near all-time lows. Bottom line: Your stimulus package isn't creating jobs, Mr. President, and America knows it, and we're holding you responsible!

The entire argument for the trillion dollar stimulus package that passed into law back in February, was that even though it would dry up productive capital and result in a net loss to the economy over the long run, in the short run it would create much-needed jobs to alleviate the distress of working class Americans.

It hasn't even done that! It was a completely worthless, piece-of-trash legislation that rewarded corporate lobbying interests at the expense of American productivity, true economic recovery, and as we now see, even jobs! I WARNED YOU ABOUT THIS!

Then in March, I reiterated the fundamental flaw in the economic thinking behind the stimulus package. And when the geniuses in Congress started talking about a possible second stimulus package, I offered some more creative, libertarian alternatives that would create real stimulus for the economy.

And I'm just a random kid with a blog! Can a random nobody like me really know more than the U.S. President about economics? How come I knew this would happen, and Congress didn't? Are our Congressmen that monumentally stupid, or did they know this would happen and not care because they did it to reward the lobbyists who will fund their reelection campaigns?

Angry Rant:

Democrats reading this- please, please get this through your mind: I am not a partisan hack, reactionary obstructionist, redneck racist, or whatever else you want to call me. I really want America to be wealthy and prosperous. I really care deeply about working class and impoverished Americans and I want what's best for them. This is not what's best for them.

Obama is not a populist savior. If he really was, I wouldn't have as big a problem with him. I rail against him for the same reasons you Democrats railed against Bush (and hey, while you were railing against Bush, I was right there with you): because Mr. Obama is a guardian of moneyed, corporate interests and is waging a war on America's poor to reward his buddies. Period.

The job numbers should set the record straight once and for all on "economic stimulus" packages. If they involve spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money, printed reserve notes, and hogged up credit to reward corporate interests with fat government contracts to do rushed work of questionable value to anyone: THEY WON'T WORK!

In response to theater commanders on the ground, Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved 1,000 more "combat enablers" to be sent to Iraq last month.

Combat enablers are classified as noncombat troops who specialize in intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, explosives disposal, medical and mental health, and personnel administration. 3,000 of these specialized troops will already be sent to Afghanistan as well, independent of General McChrystal's upcoming request for more.

The additional troops in Iraq appear to contradict President Obama's promise to institute a swift, orderly, and substantial withdrawal. Before Obama entered office, approximately 135,000 U.S. troops were stationed in Iraq. Since taking office eight months ago, 131,000 still remain.

The 1,000 troop increase, in addition to the 131,000 troops currently on the ground, also appear to contradict one of the central pillars of the so-called "Democratic mandate". In 2006, Democrats dominated the Congressional elections, and in 2008, Obama swept to power. In each election, Democrats campaigned on exiting the Iraq War in short order.

Three years later, nothing much has changed. The troop increase also appears to contradict President Obama's views on the central importance of Afghanistan. If, as Obama and his administration claim, the Afghanistan War is the focal point of the Global War on Terror, then why not send the extra 1,000 troops to this more crucial theater?

It will be interesting to see if left-leaning voters and media outlets hold President Obama's feet to the fire on these troop increases. For a President and Congress hailed as the antidote to the "warmongering" Republicans, they sure seem to be following in the same footsteps.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Yesterday's big headline was the Obama Administration's new policy (which was already announced months ago, if you'll remember) on medical marijuana:

"Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration."

I want to advise my fellow libertarians not to get too excited about this development. I'm certainly not.

This is neither a step forward for advocates of marijuana legalization, nor "states' rights" proponents who want to see the Federal government staying on its side of the line drawn by the 10th amendment.

The “clarifying” memo that will be sent out today, seven months after Holder first announced the “shift,” makes clear that the Obama administration will actually retain the same discretion the Bush administration exercises to prosecute someone whose activities are deemed legal in states that allow medical marijuana use.

In other words, they will continue Bush-era policies when they find it expedient to do so in the future — but they want praise and obeisance from the Left for paying lip service to Transformative Change now. It’s the Obama way!

Exactly! I could not have summarized it better myself. The American Spectator also does a roundup of all the gleeful opinions that see this move as an advance for federalism- and solidly refutes them.

It's interesting to see some hardened libertarians and pot-activists excited about this while two pretty conventionally conservative publications aren't being fooled at all. Another thing that both Michelle Malkin and Joseph Lawler at The American Spectator point out, is that even if this is a teeny-tiny step forward in one direction, the Obama Administration is taking gigantic leaps backward in other areas of policy.

Okay, so what if you're allowed to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, in strict accordance with your state's laws? Will that matter if the government will get to decide if your insurance will pay for that? Or if the government foots the bill itself with funds extorted from taxpayers? On a more related note, what does it say when the government makes a symbolic gesture toward drug legalization and federalism on pot, but literally bans the sale of clove cigarettes while hiking taxes on all other cigarettes?

Let me make this very, very clear. If you are a 10th amendment proponent, civil libertarian, advocate for drug legalization, or supporter of medical marijuana laws: Barack Obama IS NOT your friend.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, Then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW s l o w l y, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ... during the Carter Administration?

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple ... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW, IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Why is Rand, dead since 1982, so hot again today? Ironically, big government, one of Rand's betes noires, is stimulating her sales. Her more than 1,000-page 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, sold 25 percent more copies in the first half of this year than it sold in all of last year, shipping a total of 300,000 copies so far this year—tremendous success for a 52-year-old novel.

Readers and pundits alike look at America and see a world scarily reminiscent of Rand's government-choked dystopia in Atlas. It's a world with a struggling economy where political pull matters more than success in the free market, where the government blithely takes over huge transportation industries.

There's a move to keep illegal immigrants from participating in the census. I know, most of you didn't even know they were allowed to participate, but currently there's no law prohibiting an illegal immigrants [sic] from filling out a census form and sending it in.

Mr. Valentine outlines some of the important issues at stake. Some people for instance, charge that not allowing illegal immigrants to participate is racist. Valentine contends that allowing them to participate warps our political process because census data is used to apportion congressional districts and illegals are not citizens.

When the U.S. Constitution was written, major slave-holding states insisted that slaves be included in district apportionment though they weren't citizens, while states with fewer or no slaves objected, leading eventually to the "3/5s" compromise, counting each slave as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of congressional apportionment.

Should states with more illegal immigrants have more of a voice in Congress? Would the effect be liberalization of immigration law, or interestingly- stricter immigration laws?

Another question is simply how much data we want to have. Should the U.S. deliberately try to collect less demographic data on people who are living here just because they are not citizens? Wouldn't we want to have as much information as possible to understand as accurately as possible, the demographic makeup of our country?

Saturday, October 17, 2009

It’s hard to imagine a Republican more useless than South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. Whether spearheading legislation that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, stumping for the $787 billion taxpayer theft known as “TARP,” being the lone GOP committee vote to confirm liberal Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, or his recent joining with John Kerry to promote cap-and-trade—without shame and without fail—conservatives have never had a friend in Graham.

And yet in 2008, Graham was reelected in the deep Red State of South Carolina over a Democratic candidate, Bob Conley, who staunchly opposed amnesty, TARP and was well to the right of Lindsey in almost every respect. Many dubbed Conley a “Ron Paul Democrat,” given his support for the Texas Congressman during the Republican presidential primary and in that senatorial election the conservative “D” lost to the liberal “R” thanks purely to party affiliation. Rest assured, Lindsey Graham would like to keep things this way.

And Ron Paul would not. Comparing the 2008 Paul campaign with every other Republican who ran for president that year is a study in contrasts. Paul remained a Republican out of political necessity, sometimes seemingly regrettably, despite his continuing disappointment with his party’s lack of serious commitment to limited government principles. Every other GOP candidate, from talk radio favorite Mitt Romney to eventual nominee John McCain, would mouth occasional limited government rhetoric despite their lack of a voting record to match, seeming most interested in their ascendancy in the Republican Party and the power it affords.

When confronted by a crowd of tea partiers, town hall protesters and other angry grassroots conservatives at a meeting in Greenville this week, Graham reacted to criticism leveled against him by attacking one man: “We’re not going to be the Ron Paul party ... I love this party ... I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul ... Ron Paul’s run for president like 39 times. He keeps losing.”

Graham is right. The limited government philosophy that Paul believes once was, and could be again, the guiding principle of the Republican Party, keeps losing. Despite the Founding Fathers best intentions, the Constitution that has remained the only guideline for every vote Paul has cast during his decades-long career in Congress, has been badly damaged by politicians from both parties. To “hijack” the Republican Party, Paul would have to inspire a genuine revolution, not only in the way our government conducts its business but in what Americans think about how much business their government should be conducting. For Paul, the battle has never been about “Republican” vs. “Democrat” but limited government vs. unlimited government and there’s never been any question about which side Paul stands on.

On the other side, you’ll find Graham. As the quintessential GOP establishment man, the big government Republicanism that defined the Bush era had no greater champion than Graham. Conservatives who now trash Lindsey for siding with the Democrats have short memories, as it was Bush who first promoted amnesty, who “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system” with TARP, and grew our government and debt to record heights. At every turn, Graham was Bush’s boy. Now says Graham, “I’m going to grow this party,” which is comical considering his last attempt at Republican resurrection resulted in the sound defeat of his political life-partner, John McCain, who voters rightly saw as a continuation of the unpopular Bush. Today, Graham’s GOP remains wedded to recycling Bush-era, big government policy, always stamped with an elephant insignia and always designed to fool rank-and-file conservatives into voting against their better interests.

But now, too many are tired of being played for fools. The angry crowd that confronted Graham at a town hall meeting in Greenville this week were but the most vocal representatives of an ever-growing group of Americans who are fed up with both the excesses of Bush and the even worse excesses of Obama. For the first time in a long time, many Americans are looking back to the Founding Fathers, holding up their Constitution and seriously reexamining the role of government in their lives. This is fertile ground for an admitted “revolutionary” like Ron Paul. This is dangerous ground for protectors of the status quo like Lindsey Graham. “We’re not going to be the Ron Paul party” Graham will continue to say defiantly, but can no longer say definitely.

And neither can Paul. While any future Republican Party worth having must indeed, finally be “hijacked” by the principles of limited, constitutional government, big government Republicans like Graham would like nothing more than a safe return to the good old Bush days when constituents would just keep their mouths shut, wallets open and their votes-a-comin.’

If this happens—and there’s a good chance it might—conservatives, constitutionalists and patriots of all stripes interested in genuine political revolution must finally to go to whichever party, old or new, that best suits their interests. And Lindsey Graham and his retread Republican Party—can go to hell.

----------

About the Southern Avenger:

"The Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter has been in radio for over a decade, is currently a personality for 1250 AM WTMA talk radio in Charleston, South Carolina, writes a weekly column for the Charleston City Paper, is a contributing editor for Taki's Magazine and Young American Revolution and works as a freelance writer who has been featured in numerous publications including The American Conservative, The American Spectator and Lewrockwell.com.

Friday, October 16, 2009

This is the second installment of the Think Tank Lineup, a new feature here at THL: a regular round-up consisting of short excerpts from- with links to- articles from the various liberty-oriented think tanks.

In last week's lineup, we put our finger to the pulse of America's libertarian think tanks to see what they thought about health care reform. (To summarize, it should involve LESS, not more government.)

This week, the libertarian think tanks are also in agreement: a more successful national defense strategy should involve less troops in Afghanistan and a more focused mission, but that if America does choose to escalate in Afghanistan, it had better send A LOT more troops than 40 or 80 thousand, and win a swift, decisive victory.

In the private sector, there is always a test of success. The business must make a profit. It can sustain some losses, but the clock is always running on those. At some point, after all cuts have been made and costs are trimmed to a minimum, the business has to close shop. The summer of losses must become the autumn of profits, or else it's all over.

Not so in government. Failing projects can go on forever. There is no profit and loss test. There is no test at all, in fact. Agencies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can blast away at a particularly egregious case of government waste, but hardly anyone pays attention. Congress has no reason to scrap it. No one does. Taxpayers have no means to pull the plug, because the whole thing is run outside their purview.

The motto for counterinsurgency war should be either commit enough forces to win early or get out. After eight long years of a lackadaisical effort, another 40,000 committed this late won’t even lift the Obama administration out of the halfhearted category. The U.S. should cut its losses, withdraw from Afghanistan, and concentrate on pressuring al-Qaeda in Pakistan with a smaller military footprint—so as not to stir up more anti-U.S. Islamists than we are neutralizing.

To everyone who participated in my blog's giveaway contest last month, I have finally finished compiling a list of all the entries, cutting them out, putting them in a hat (cliché, I know), and drawing for the prize winners.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

First we learn earlier this week that a detailed study by a military historian found that weapons failed our troops in Afghanistan during a critical moment in a firefight, leaving nine dead and 27 wounded:

In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

In the third day of this jaw-dropping story, wherein an Obama adviser admits exactly what the Democrats want for our health care (higher prices for healthy people, no care for old people, and less medical breakthroughs and innovation), I am seeing links coming in from all over.

The blogs and message forums are on fire over this, as they should be, and as I'm reading through the responses and comments all over the blogosphere, one thing I keep seeing pop up, is the claim that this is somehow being taken out of context.

SERIOUSLY!?

Just listen to it. If you think this is being taken out of context then listen to it!

"The quote is from 2007 in regards to what an honest candidate should say to the citizens if they didn't care about becoming president. It's a slam against the republicans, who were in office at this time, and about how the republicans were handling health care reform."

No way is that even close to the truth. To begin with, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 2007. And at the risk of being redundant- just listen to the clip. Robert Reich prefaces his infamous and revealing statements by saying:

"This is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them."

Did you get that first part? "This is what the truth is." In other words, Robert Reich thinks the misanthropic view of medicine that he spouted is just the plain truth about how our system should work so that it actually fulfills its goal of treating sick people.

That part, by the way- the part where he criticizes our system for avoiding sick people, would make absolutely no sense if it were simply what he thinks a Republican would say if they were being honest.

Instead, he is clearly arguing that this is what a politician would say if they could be honest about the real issues facing health care (as Robert Reich sees it in his warped view of humanity), and the necessary precondition of such honesty for him is an honorable, educated, discerning citizenry.

In other words: "We could have our socialized medicine if you selfish, uneducated ingrates would just let go of your hard-earned income, your wasteful spending on your parents' and grandparents' health, your desire to live longer, and your demand for new and better technologies to make you healthier and fight diseases."

Anyone who actually thinks he's elucidating what Republicans are really thinking, and not what he's really thinking, and wishing he could say to normal, non-Berkley student, middle Americans (except that we're just too uneducated)- needs to listen to the two minute clip again.

If that doesn't change their mind, it might help to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. If they refuse to do that, there's nothing you or I can do for them. As this story spreads, expect more of this from stubborn partisans.

They're going to say Reich's words were taken out of context. Just keep pointing them back to the clip. Earnest, independent-minded, grassroots (and uneducated in Reich's view) Americans will be able to tell the truth.

I typically feature U.S. and global news here at The HumbleLibertarian, but I did want to do a brief roundup today as a Nashville resident of some things that my Tennessean readers can do to stay involved in the cause for liberty.

1. Urge Tennessee's Senators to Audit the Fed

Congressman Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed is a landmark piece of legislation that will give Americans the knowledge we deserve about where all those trillions of dollars in loans (of our money) have gone.

Sadly both of Tennessee's supposedly Republican Senators oppose the Senate version of that bill, The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009. This is particularly sad, because Tennessee is the great state of Andrew Jackson.

President Jackson, if you'll remember, was vehemently opposed to the very existence of the central bank in his time, and worked hard to shut it down entirely, which makes his appearance on the $20 note of the central bank's present incarnation, the Federal Reserve, extremely ironic.

Indeed, Jackson said of central banking:

"The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

"The audit? It’s a bad idea. It’s a sorry day when the Congress superimposes itself on the Fed, nosing around in monetary policy. It’s bad enough we are nosing around with the car companies."

Please contact Lamar Alexander and let him know you disagree: +1.202.224.4944. Tennessee's other Senator, Bob Corker also goes on record as one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of an audit.

Please also contact Mr. Corker and let him know that he should join all 177 of his Republican colleagues in the House by co-sponsoring the Senate version of Audit the Fed: +1.202.224.3344.

2. Oppose Tennessee's Nashville Convention Center

The debate is heating up over a proposed one billion dollar convention center and accompanying three hundred million dollar hotel. Chances look more and more like these will be publicly funded with Tennessee residents' tax dollars.

Instead of using state surpluses to lower taxes and drive economic growth by putting money back in our hands, the State of Tennessee and City of Nashville are poised to undertake a massive, wasteful spending project.

The economic (il)logic of driving growth by drying up productive capital to fund pet projects never ceases to astound me.

The Swine Flu: From an RN's PerspectiveA Discussion on the Swine Flu, American Monetary Policy, and Physical/Financial Survival Strategies

10/15/09 6:30pm Thursday

Join us at Shoney's in Bellevue, TN for an entertaining and informative discussion. Presentations will begin at 7pm. Admission is free and Patriotic DVD's and Magazines will be available for purchase. All proceeds will fund an upcoming local documentary on the History and Abuses of the American Dollar.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Yesterday, I posted a video of Obama adviser Robert Reich saying that we should just let old people die because paying for their health care is "too expensive."

As that post goes viral today (most notably with a mention from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit), I decided to dig up some more on Robert Reich. Check out what he says in this recent video to persuade you to support the Democrats' "public option:"

The money quote is this:

"Not surprisingly, there are powerful groups with a huge self interest in seeing this reform fail... They're betting if they confuse and scare you enough about change, you'll decide to stay with a flawed system that everyone hates and costs too much. Look it's the same old game. They want to scare you. And they have plenty of money and plenty of political partisans to do their dirty work."

I see, Mr. Reich- so when opponents of the Democrats' so-called reforms say that they will ration care to the elderly, skyrocket the costs of care, and hurt innovation, they're just powerful interest groups trying to scare Americans?

Then what do you say to the Robert Reich from two years ago that said:

"You young healthy people- you're going to have to pay more... And by the way... if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die.

Also... I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government... to force drug companies... to reduce their costs, but that means less innovation, and that means less new products, and less new drugs on the markets, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents."

Kind of puts a damper on your argument when you candidly said all the things that the "fear-mongers" are warning the American people about. We're not scare-mongers, Mr. Reich.

The rationing, the costs, the stifled innovation... all that will happen with the Democrats' proposals, and not only did you say so two years ago in your speech at UC Berkeley, but you said that it should be that way- to a cheering audience.

Patriots, this story is starting to catch on, especially with a much appreciated boost from Glenn Reynolds at Pajamas Media. Please keep spreading the news and sharing that video with everyone you know.

We have caught the Democrats in a lie, and we had better push forward with this as Congress makes its final, last-ditch effort to seize control of our health care. This is positively scandalous- Mr. Reich is going to be the next Van Jones if we have the courage to make him account for his words.

Monday, October 12, 2009

SNL just eviscerated “Our Dear Leader” President Obama last Saturday saying that he has accomplished nothing in his first 10 months. "When you look at my record," his impersonator, Fred Armisen said, "it's very clear what I've done so far -- and that is nothing,”

Yet now the Nobel Peace Prize is given to a man who has not kept any of his campaign promises -from closing Gitmo, to not hiring lobbyists, to posting bills online so we can read them before they are signed. Why is the Nobel Peace Prize going to Obama?

Let me answer a question with a question. What do we know about the Nobel Peace Prize or Alfred Nobel? Alfred Nobel, born in 1833, was a Swedish chemist and engineer. He was an armaments manufacturer and the inventor of dynamite.

After an obituary was written prematurely about him denouncing his invention of dynamite, he decided to change his legacy. His fortune that he had made over his lifetime was left to the establishment of prizes for physical science, chemistry, medical science, literary work and international fraternity (or peace).

The International Fraternity Prize is given to someone who works toward “the suppression or reduction of standing armies, or in the establishment or furtherance of peace congresses.” The only other sitting American presidents who have received this were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt received his in 1906 for his efforts to see peace between Japan and Russia. Roosevelt was also a Progressive and a Republican (John McCain’s favorite president, too!) Wilson, another Progressive who was also a racist eugenicist and imprisoned American citizens, received his Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for his work to establish the League of Nations.

Obama has spent the first months of his presidency apologizing for America’s past wrongs. He is still fighting two wars overseas and turning his own country against itself. He has said he will meet with ruthless dictators and has a policy of appeasement.

He wants to see a world without nuclear weapons or at least an America without its nuclear arsenal. Most will recognize that none of these things will lead to peace.

But since the nomination process ended just a couple weeks into Obama’s term, I guess this is a prize for intent not for accomplishment. Once again Obama is praised for just showing up and voting present.

Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to President Barack Obama, spills the beans about the Democrat's plans for your health care!

He affirms that this is what an educated, honorable, realistic, democracy should support:

-Younger people should pay more

-Healthier people should pay more

-Older people should just die- they're "too expensive"

-There should be "less innovation" in medical technology

-You should not expect to live longer than your parents.

You heard it yourself! This is what they're planning for our health care. This is what they want. Nothing about that is enlightened, liberal, compassionate, or good. This man and his boss are clearly misanthropic, cruel, and vicious.